Subject: Connect group's 1st week status

From: alan bartky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 93 14:50:09 PDT

Fellow Connect/Disconnect members:

I have just returned from a trip to one of our joint technology partners and
was very pleased to find a large amount of mail from our group.  If you
have not already let me know who you are please do so.  Send me your Name,
Company, Phone Number, Email Address and whether you plan to be an Active
or Auditing member.

My definition of Active versus Auditing is an "Active" member is one who
plans to contribute to the group and an "Auditing" member is one who does
not plan to directly contribute, but anyone registered on the mailing
list may comment on mail or send contributions as they see fit.

I will publish next week a list of the members using the information
that you have all sent me.

I have skimmed through my mail, and it seems to me that most of the comments
were on whether we should add QLLC to the list of requirements.  I would like
to come to a group consensus on this subject by early next week.  Other than
that I plan to continue with the agenda as planned for next week.

Again thanks for everybody's response, let's keep this momentum going!

Alan K. Bartky ([email-masked])

P.S.  I apologize for accidentally responding to the group instead of
individuals in a couple of cases (e.g. on requests for info) it seems like
I have not got this Unix Mail package quite figured out ("reply" versus
"Reply").

---

From: "Bernard Brady" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 16:43:33 EDT

Does anyone have an idea what the responses would be in the following
case.  

         REACH_ACK (Data Link ID, Origin Cir ID, Target Cir ID)
           ------------------------------------------------->

          CONTACT (Data Link ID, Origin Cir ID, Target Cir ID)
           ------------------------------------------------->

	CONTACT (Data Link ID, Origin Cir ID, Target Cir ID)
           <-------------------------------------------------

         CONTACTED (Data Link ID, Origin Cir ID, Target Cir ID)
           <-------------------------------------------------
     
	CONTACTED (Data Link ID, Origin Cir ID, Target Cir ID)
           <------------------------------------------------->

By what I read in the RFC after the REACH_ACK is sent the originator can
send a CONTACT.  If before getting the REACH_ACK the target beleives the
DLC to be connectedthen it can also  send a CONTACT.   Since there is a
WAN in between the timing of the two CONTACTS will pass one another.

Who is the originator in this case?

Are both sides required to send a CONTACTED response or does the CONTACT
act as a response in this case?  

The RFC state machine does not have this  possibility covered, does this
mean its an implementation issue?

Does anyone know of other unspecified conditions like this?

Bernie Brady